My main gripe is that it seems like a strangely weird place to decide where we need protection.
I would think a similar article could be written about, just off the top of my head:
* Junk food
* Participating in dangerous sports (Football, Boxing, etc)
* All forms of gambling
* Alcohol, cigarettes
* Pornography
All of which are also dangerous, potentially addictive, and probably has a larger net negative impact than sports gambling.
What principles could be adopted to not turn this into a larger and larger bureaucracy that decides which of these industries gets preferential treatment over another?
How about evidence based policy? We've seen what happens with drug prohibition and we've seen what happens with gambling prohibition. The former leads to an extensive underworld and tons of negative consequences but the latter wasn't nearly as bad.
What were the downsides of the prohibition on sports gambling? How many fewer people lost their savings to a blackmarket bookie versus the number of people who lose money now on the easily accessible mobile apps? I struggle to think of any net-negative effects of the prohibition on gambling - all the negative effects of gambling get worse when it's legalized.
- a recognition that humans have exploits, we're not rational automatons. The power/resource asymmetries in a lot of these industries make it fundamentally "unfair" to model this like we would rational utility maximizers
- evaluate these things in terms of societal harm
That being said, yeah junk food should absolutely be regulated the industry is killing and crippling millions of people right now
The state can of course, claim that no one should be gambling on sports anyways, so its not a problem that people lose access, just as it can with any other vice. People who have no interest in sports gambling would of course, not care either way.
If there is no value assigned to having the freedom, in and of itself, then of course, banning anything becomes trivial.
I think under this criteria, as long as we can have an "effective" ban (ie: no black markets are created) on anything that is not healthy for people to participate in, it would be worth banning.
So basically, anything that is unhealthy, but not yet banned, is only allowed because the state cannot yet find an effective way to ban it.
That doesn’t mean that corporations should have the freedom to exploit society for profit while being a total net-negative. Enabling a vice in the name of "freedom" isn’t a virtue.
A little black market gambling is completely fine as long as the bookie is the one committing crimes and not their customers.
Gambling is one of the worst addictions one can acquire (no health drawbacks) and unfortunately young men seem more predisposed to such dopamine hits. I think it is one of the more less seen issues that is growing today. At least going to a casino is a friction point and optimizing for a one click app is probably not good. Perhaps we should cut it off before yet another insanely powerful lobby that feeds on addiction grows and can't be stopped. It seems the boulder is already rolling down the hill though.
Look at what happened with Robinhood when they made trading feel like a game and removed fees. That $10 commission used to make people stop and think, even for just a second. Now, there are tons of young guys who’ve lost a lot, if not everything, but we don't hear about them. My younger brother and his high school friends are literally counting down the days until they turn 18 so they can get on Robinhood, hoping to get rich like people did with Gamestop. Maybe we could have a higher age limit like 24 or something because the real issue is the youth who are prone to sabotaging themselves.
While it might seem like a weird place to draw a protective line, but I don't know, I'm sure many people today would want protections for half the stuff you mentioned if our congress was actually functional. I'd say we have to start somewhere and online gambling is definitely a behavior that is not worth optimizing our access to. If we know people are vulnerable to this stuff psychologically, why put more potholes that people can fall into? Are we really doing this just to build another multi-billion dollar industry that leeches off regular people? Let them go to a casino when they’ve saved up a couple hundred bucks for a fun night, not blow $100 in their car during a 10-minute shift break.
Anyway just my thoughts happy to hear counters, we could just allow people to make their own decisions but can anyone make the argument that overall society has the discipline to turn easy sports betting into a net positive? Perhaps but hey we can bet on it. :)
Regulated in many places. Some Energy drinks are frequently banned from sale to minors. Nutrition labeling is required. Taxed at different rates than other foods in some places.
> * Participating in dangerous sports (Football, Boxing, etc)
Professional boxing matches are heavily regulated. Doctors have to be onsite for most bouts. Helmets are extensively tested, and there are rules at all levels about safe and unsafe hits.
> * All forms of gambling
Deeply regulated, down to what games can be played, who can work in a Casino, how they can advertise, what happens if there is a dispute. Etc.
> * Alcohol, cigarettes
Again, deeply regulated. Age restricted. Courts can monitor your alcohol intake if you get in trouble. You have to have a license to serve alcohol in some jurisdictions. Manufacturing alcohol has a licensing process that takes years in most places. You can be held liable for what happens if you overserve someone. Cigarettes can't really be advertised in the US anymore. In Canada, the actual nicotine product is not allowed to be displayed at retail outlets.
> * Pornography
Extensive recordkeeping requirements. Hardly ever advertised. Age and ID restrictions.
You basically listed some of the most restricted and regulated products. Many of them are required to com with warnings about the dangers of using them, and can't be advertised to general audiences.
You won't see former sports stars taking a puff on a nice smooth Lucky Strike and telling you all about the tobacco curing process at half-time on the broadcast. But you will certainly see that same sport star breaking down the odds, and the bonuses that new customers get on that show.
But making it a flashy app is really what seems to drive meme investing.
I was buying stocks and mutual funds on Schwab for years before RH came along, but it was boring (as investing should be).